Stick to the Facts
Add Nbsla.ca as a Preferred Source on Google to see more of our stories in your search results.
The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has dismissed a long-running complaint from Bell that accused Videotron of improperly relying on Bell’s wireless network through wholesale roaming agreements.
The decision, issued on July 17, brings an end to a dispute that began in 2021 when Bell asked the regulator to intervene, claiming that Videotron customers were using Bell’s network far more than what was allowed under Canada’s wireless roaming rules.
At the centre of the disagreement was the issue of permanent roaming, a situation where customers of a smaller wireless provider may spend most of their time connected to another company’s network instead of their own carrier’s infrastructure.
The CRTC’s decision means Videotron will not face financial penalties, additional regulatory orders, or restrictions related to the complaint. Instead, the regulator has maintained its position that wireless carriers must work together to establish reasonable limits for roaming usage.
Understanding the Wholesale Roaming Rules That Started the Conflict
Why the CRTC Created Wholesale Roaming Access in 2015
Wholesale roaming was introduced as part of the CRTC’s efforts to encourage competition in Canada’s wireless industry.
In 2015, the regulator required major wireless companies including Bell, Rogers, and Telus to provide wholesale roaming access to smaller carriers. The goal was to help regional providers compete with national operators by allowing their customers to stay connected when they travelled outside areas covered by their own networks.
For smaller carriers, the arrangement provided an important advantage. Instead of needing complete nationwide coverage immediately, they could build their networks gradually while relying on larger companies’ infrastructure in areas where they had limited service.
However, the CRTC included an important condition: roaming access was intended to be temporary and occasional, not a permanent replacement for building a wireless network.
The rule was designed to prevent smaller carriers from operating entirely on another company’s towers without making investments in their own infrastructure.
The Difference Between Occasional Roaming and Permanent Roaming
The disagreement between Bell and Videotron focused on where regulators should draw the line between acceptable roaming and excessive network use.
Occasional roaming happens when customers leave their carrier’s normal coverage area and temporarily connect to another provider’s network.
For example, a customer travelling outside their home region might automatically connect to another company’s towers while still using their own carrier’s service.
Permanent roaming is different. It occurs when customers consistently rely on another carrier’s network instead of their own provider’s infrastructure.
The challenge is that the CRTC never created a specific percentage or usage limit that defines when roaming becomes excessive.
That lack of a clear numerical threshold became the key issue in Bell’s complaint.
Bell’s 2021 Complaint Against Videotron
Bell Accused Videotron Customers of Excessive Network Usage
In 2021, Bell submitted a complaint to the CRTC arguing that Videotron customers were effectively using Bell’s network as a primary service rather than as a backup.
Bell claimed that too many Videotron subscribers were spending significant amounts of time connected to Bell’s wireless network, creating what Bell considered an unfair situation.
The company asked the CRTC to intervene by issuing orders against Videotron and applying financial penalties.
Bell’s argument was based on the idea that Videotron was benefiting from access to Bell’s infrastructure without meeting the intended purpose of wholesale roaming rules.
According to Bell, the arrangement was allowing Videotron customers to receive broad network coverage while avoiding some of the costs associated with building a larger wireless network.
The Challenge of Defining an Acceptable Roaming Threshold
The main difficulty in Bell’s case was that there was no official CRTC measurement for determining when roaming becomes permanent.
The regulator had intentionally avoided creating a fixed number because wireless networks and customer behaviour can vary significantly.
Instead, the CRTC expected carriers to negotiate practical limits between themselves.
In a 2022 letter, the Commission directed Bell and Videotron to work together to establish a mutually acceptable threshold for identifying excessive roaming.
Bell disagreed with that approach and argued that the CRTC was failing to properly enforce its own rules.
Bell Asked the CRTC to Reconsider Its Position
Bell Claimed the Regulator Made Legal Errors
After the CRTC instructed the companies to resolve the issue themselves, Bell requested that the Commission reconsider its decision.
Bell argued that the CRTC had made legal and procedural mistakes by refusing to take stronger action.
The company claimed that the regulator had a responsibility to enforce wholesale roaming rules and should not leave important decisions entirely to negotiations between competing carriers.
Bell also argued that allowing companies to decide their own roaming limits could weaken the purpose of the rules.
The CRTC Rejected Bell’s Arguments
The CRTC reviewed Bell’s request but determined that the company had not provided enough evidence to justify changing the original decision.
The Commission explained that overturning a previous ruling requires showing that there is serious doubt about whether the original decision was correct.
After examining Bell’s arguments, the CRTC concluded that Bell had not met that standard.
As a result, the regulator rejected Bell’s request for reconsideration and allowed the earlier decision to stand.
Videotron’s Roaming Measurement System Becomes a Point of Debate
Bell Challenged Videotron’s Method for Identifying Permanent Roaming
Another major part of the dispute involved how Videotron measured possible permanent roaming among its customers.
Videotron used its own internal process to monitor customer network usage.
Under Videotron’s approach, the company reviewed customer activity each month and identified users who spent more than half of their voice or data usage on another carrier’s network for two consecutive months.
Bell argued that Videotron’s measurement system was too generous and created a standard that benefited Videotron customers.
According to Bell, the company’s method allowed customers to continue using Bell’s network extensively without being classified as permanent roamers.
CRTC Found No Evidence That Videotron’s Standard Was Unfair
The CRTC considered Bell’s concerns but found that Bell had not provided evidence showing that other wireless providers used stricter standards.
Without comparable information from other carriers, the Commission said it had no basis to conclude that Videotron’s approach was unreasonable.
The regulator noted that Bell’s argument relied largely on criticism of Videotron’s internal measurement process rather than proof that the process violated established rules.
Because the evidence did not demonstrate a clear problem, the CRTC rejected this part of Bell’s complaint as well.
Final Outcome: Bell’s Complaint Denied and No Penalties Issued
Videotron Avoids Regulatory Penalties After Four-Year Dispute
Nearly four years after Bell first filed its complaint, the CRTC has officially closed the matter.
The final decision means Videotron will not receive a penalty and will not be required to make changes based on Bell’s allegations.
The Commission determined that Bell did not demonstrate that Videotron had violated the wholesale roaming framework in a way requiring regulatory action.
CRTC Encourages Bell and Videotron to Resolve Future Disagreements
Although the complaint has been dismissed, the CRTC continues to encourage both companies to negotiate directly.
The regulator’s position remains that wireless carriers are best placed to establish practical roaming thresholds that reflect their networks and customer behaviour.
If Bell and Videotron are unable to reach an agreement on their own, CRTC staff remain available to help mediate discussions.
The decision highlights the regulator’s preference for cooperation between carriers rather than imposing detailed usage limits from a central authority.
What the Decision Means for Canada’s Wireless Industry
Smaller Carriers Continue to Rely on Roaming Agreements
The ruling is significant for Canada’s smaller wireless providers because wholesale roaming remains an important tool for expanding competition.
Regional carriers often depend on agreements with larger companies while they continue investing in their own networks.
A decision requiring stricter limits on roaming could have affected how smaller providers compete in markets dominated by national wireless companies.
Major Carriers May Continue Pushing for Clearer Rules
For companies like Bell, the decision may reinforce concerns about whether existing roaming rules provide enough protection for network investments.
Large carriers have argued that unlimited reliance on their infrastructure could reduce incentives for competitors to expand their own networks.
The CRTC’s decision suggests that future disputes may continue to focus on negotiations between carriers rather than automatic regulatory enforcement.
Conclusion: CRTC Keeps Focus on Carrier Negotiations Instead of New Roaming Limits
The CRTC’s rejection of Bell’s complaint against Videotron closes one of Canada’s most significant wireless roaming disputes in recent years.
While Bell argued that Videotron customers were making excessive use of its network, the regulator found insufficient evidence that Videotron had violated the rules.
The decision reinforces the CRTC’s long-standing approach that wholesale roaming should remain a temporary support system rather than a permanent business model, while also leaving carriers responsible for determining practical limits.